RelentlessImp's page

Anyone else amused by the irony of someone named SkeletonBait playing a character leery of the undead?

EDIT: A friend of mine is interested in joining, but cannot into paizo's forums. here's his character sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HUKTZ-E3JJMBZ3ZPLSItbv7Trkqf8gf4xJtzf7O xEbQ/edit

Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist.

Make sure that you have the correct URL and that the owner of the file hasn't deleted it.

I hope I'm calculating luck correctly. It seems like it starts at 1, but I can't quite find the rules supporting that.

Luck is calculated this way:

Starts at 30, add 2d10 (or buy it up using points from the 90-point buy) for everyone. Page 28 of the PDF, under Rolling Characteristic Scores, second paragraph.

http://pastebin.com/mEWKRnwh
Caen gro-Balog, Orsimer novice smith and battlemage, reporting for duty.

Um. They used the term 'iconic' for Sanjan. That means the character is supposed to be an iconic figure for the class they're putting forth. If it's illegally built, then it really shows a lack of care in making these so-called 'iconic' characters.

New material doesn't make the old material obsolete. That goes doubly so for an example character that's supposed to be representative of said class, given that he was put forth in the base rules, and /still/ an illegal character by the game he's supposed to be representing.

Not really a good face to put forward.

The character who's still breathing, since you can't roleplay and participate in a story if your character's dead.

Donut world that serves as a prison for a God, terraformed and arcanely twisted just for that purpose, by a progenitor race who were wiped out (or nearly) by that God's final act. The world serves as the focus of the prison, guarded by an omnipresent artificial intelligence instilled into the very bones of the planet. With the progenitors gone, their "zoo animals" gradually evolved into the more common (PHB and whatnot) races and built their society on the bones of those that came before.

Everyone gets magic (which is tightly controlled and doled out every day by the AI), the world's made up of primarily floating continents, airlanes controlled by an omnipresent Traveler's Guild (and subsidiaries in each government)... the world's got roughly 7 times the surface area of Earth, with only 20% of that landmass (and an additional 20% making up the floating continents). Players start out with urban adventure on one continent or another, gradually moving into dungeon crawling and trespassing against one faction or another as they seek their own place in the world.

The only major difference is that Clerics of a Cause are more common, since belief shapes deities into existence - clerics campaigning for a cause and gathering followers literally create a deity with their belief. Without worshipers, the deities descend to mortal status, to live and die or regain their divinity by collecting new worshipers.

Minor plot points; the progenitor race were illithids, and the donut world is their home world, in which they were forced to reshape and imprison Ilsensine with an immortal servitor (an animated intelligence the size of the world) to guard the prison. In retaliation, Ilsensine tried to wipe them out, and they danced their little dance out back in time, leaving behind their Empire to crumble into dust.

Still working out a few details, but that's the basics.

Isn't a wand DC 20 O_o?

Yes. I misread it. But a DC20 check isn't something every monk is doing by the time Fly comes online for the spellcasters.

You want to play counter cat and parry mouse all day and we can man but this is getting redundant. I am not going to sing "anything you can do I can do better! I can do anything better than you!".

You win, monks cant beat you ever. Wizards are on auto-win and they always have the right spells. They are totally the best class in the game and no one could ever compare.

I repeat, you win. Your right. You are the best.

Note: sorry everyone else but that last one really irked me.

Please note I left some very blatant remarks on spells that every wizard should have prepared at level 10. Not all of them, but at least some of them, should be a valid defensive strategy against any type of opponent. But since you turned this into Monk against Wizard, you were proven wrong at every opportunity and showed a remarkably weak grasp of the rules as they are written, and then tried to drag other encounters into your little fantasy land rather than defending your own points about Monks being good against Wizards.

I think my favorite was "wands are point and shoot". I mean, seriously, what? Please go read the rules as they are printed and then realize that monks are completely, and utterly, boned against any caster with half a brain - which is 50% more brain than most monks seem to have.

Thank you, and good day, sir.

RelentlessImp wrote:

Sorry, what UMD check is the Monk making to activate that Wand of Fly, again? On a skill that isn't a class skill? And possibly Charisma as a dumpstat? DC25. He can't take 20. You can't even Take 10.

go read the core rule book about wand activation, it says point and shoot, not to complicated if someone shows you how and you have had it in the past. over time a monk could figure out point and shoot.

These are obviously the rules "as you want them to be". You make the check every time you want to use the wand. Please read the relevant text.

Oh look, here's the relevant text.

You make a Use Magic Device check each time you activate a device such as a wand.

Emphasis mine.

Second, potion of fly, much cheaper and should be too difficult to use.

So you just carry around a lot of potions, then? Again, the Wizard is using nothing but his class features and you're using items everyone has access to. In effect, you're spending a lot of your WBL to do something you're not very good at against someone who can do it without any gold expenditure at all.

RelentlessImp wrote:

0th: Who cares? Lots of Prestidigitation.
1st: Again, who cares? If you do, then there's 2x grease, 2x whocares, Xx whatever.
2nd: 3x glitterdust, Xx whatever.
3rd: 1x extended rope trick, Xx whatever.
4th: 2x dimension door, Xx whatever.
5th: 2x teleport, 2x overland flight, Xx whatever.

So your plans are to run away? I dont see any offensive spells and alot of those (nigh the ones with reflex saves which for a monk are a joke) are closer range than you are going to want to be since I can catch you apparently. cool, I spend most every round attempting to chase you down. Hope you never run out of spells. Congratulations another wizard with the idea that running always ten thousand miles = win. Hope you dont sleep.

You think wizards are king because you can run away from me real good?

I think Wizards are king because they can stop you from doing anything to them at all, which is as much of a win as anything else, as they just avoided the encounter with the monk who tried to show his Kung Fu and failed at it miserably.

RelentlessImp wrote:

And yes, these are spells my Wizards always have prepared. They're basic defensive strategies. Throw in a Wind Wall and you basically have the part of my spells prepared list that never changes. I can wager quite a few people who play Wizards have very similar setups.

Sure windwall.. so how does that stop the flight? or Abundant Step? Which by the way can work in combination.

No Baleful Polymorph? why because monk can save? no lighting or fireball?

You seem to have a whole lot of "who cares" prepared. Is that because after I counter this you are going to add another spell to your list of "must haves"

All in good fun man :) I...

Wind Wall is for the archer failure that will inevitably show up to attack the Wizard to counter his flight. It won't work. I never said it stopped flight or abundant step.

And no, the list stays pretty much the same day to day, the rest of the slots swap out as needed.

Also, Abundant Step:

At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door.

This is 10th level. And anyways:

After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn.

So you Abundant Step to the Wizard, start falling (unless your Potion of Fly is active), and the Wizard... Dimension Doors away from you. Where's the net gain here? Where, at any point, do you stop being something more than a mild annoyance on the order of Wile E. Coyote?

RelentlessImp wrote:

You know, I might be out of line here, but...

This is at 10th level. Why didn't the wizard cast overland flight that morning, and is out of reach of the monk, who sure as hell doesn't have Wings of Flying or any reliable way of obtaining flight with his level 10 WBL? (Once again proving that a single school [transmutation] has enough tools at its disposal to completely destroy a class as badly designed as the Monk. Or any melee-focused character.)

Let's say the Wizard dumps his Intelligence. Sure, that might, might make for some interesting roleplaying, but a dumb Wizard is about as fun to play as a weak Fighter. Or a Monk. That's an NPC, not a PC.

Consequently, any adventurer who drops their Constitution is dead meat. There's enough out there that threatens so much that relies on their Constitution (hitpoints, fortitude saves, not dying) that someone with a low Constitution isn't going to make it in the wide world of adventuring.

Also, why doesn't he throw a Will save at the Monk? Enchantment is one of the most commonly banned schools for any Wizard worth the name. Guess what the other two are. I'll give you one for free: It's the school with all the worthless SR: Yes spells whose only function is to cause hitpoint damage that is better done by the BSF. Spells whose damage stayed the same from 2E to 3E and Pathfinder even though hitpoints went through a doubling (tripling?) during the transition between the first two.

UGH

you are way off man.

Once Enchantment the monk has +7 for a base save +6 for his modifier by that level and an additional bonus for still mind with a +2, he will beat the save. +15 to his save. On average he saves, very easily.

Secondly you are countering every point I make with a counter point that, quite frankly, outside of gameplay I would have to counter again with a different point. A wand of fly is hardly outside WBL but sure man if you are just going to counter ever point I make with "well the wizard would have prepared this...

Sorry, what UMD check is the Monk making to activate that Wand of Fly, again? On a skill that isn't a class skill? And possibly Charisma as a dumpstat? DC25. He can't take 20. You can't even Take 10.

I am not 'way off' - there was someone who argued these points a long time ago. Please see this thread and note how soon the laughter starts. All the counterarguments therein can be used to explain how your Monk can't win against any intelligent Wizard. It's 3.5-specific, but the Pathfinder Monk hasn't really changed all that much - most of the counterarguments are still valid.

Basic spell set-up for a 10th level Wizard. Please feel free to say if I'm "metagaming" a 20+ Intelligence.

0th: Who cares? Lots of Prestidigitation.
1st: Again, who cares? If you do, then there's 2x grease, 2x whocares, Xx whatever.
2nd: 3x glitterdust, Xx whatever.
3rd: 1x extended rope trick, Xx whatever.
4th: 2x dimension door, Xx whatever.
5th: 2x teleport, 2x overland flight, Xx whatever.

These are basic defensive and BFC spells. Please note that if the Monk attacks at the end of the day, it's very possible that he might have a chance - if it wasn't for the fact the Wizard most likely has a higher Fly skill than the Monk (what with having an actual way to fly every day, unlike the Monk, and more skill points to dump into situational skills, what with his higher Intelligence) and 20 hours of Flight per day.

And yes, these are spells my Wizards always have prepared. They're basic defensive strategies. Throw in a Wind Wall and you basically have the part of my spells prepared list that never changes. I can wager quite a few people who play Wizards have very similar setups.

Maintain parity? Between what and what?

Maintain parity between the caster's ability to lock down multiple targets with a wave of his hand and a magic word and the triple-digit hitpoints of most creature at the level where it matters.

The golden rule of balance is "if, given the choice between options A and B, everyone will take A, then A isn't balanced and probably overpowered"
...unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I agree with you :-)

The golden rule of balance is, "if, given the choice between options A and B, everyone will take A, and B is a load of crap like only getting one BS attack per round, then A is the superior option and probably should be something included in the core rules".

Otherwise known as "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things".

Thanks for all the comments.

Nerfing this ability is not really my intention here, I'm more interested with the fluff. I'm trying to "see" how the attack is done. For an animal or a monster striking with natural attacks, the full-attack is done with one attack per limb. Delivering this attack at the end of a charge can be seen as "pouncing" with all limbs forward, thus delivering all the attacks at the same time, which is coherent with a charge. With this in mind, I have difficulties seeing a humanoid being able to deliver the same kind of action with all his iterative attacks, especially if said humanoid uses only one weapon.

But the quotation about the samurai being trained enough to do so alleviates this a little, except that the wording of the charge action specifies that the end position must be in the closest square to the target, not a "badass pose" beside or behind them. That looks like a ride-by or flyby attack, in fact, except that it's delivered on foot.

What I find strange is that a humanoid with this ability is able to squeeze as many attacks in a charge action (which means after moving twice) than what they do while not moving. In action economics, Pounce gives the equivalent of two full-round actions in one round. If characters are able to do that, shouldn't they be able to do more attacks if they don't move at all? We could perhaps merge the Pounce and Haste effects, by saying that one allows the other: being Hasted would allow either an extra attack in a full-attack (as already indicated), or move and then full-attack, or charge with a full-attack (=pounce).

From a balance point of view, once a character has Pounce, chances are that he'll do that all the time, bringing the non-pounce fighters to shame. The only drawback would be the AoOs incurred by leaving a monster to charge another (or jump/charge with Leap Attack and/or Mantis Leap and/or other feats). But a monk can be quite skilled at evading these attacks (mobility, acrobatics, no armor check penalty).

No. Why make melee worse because of fluff issues? They get one full round of actions (a move action and a non-crap attack option) and it takes some very specific builds to make it worthwhile. Fluff it however you want; don't weaken one of the few methods melee has to maintain parity at higher levels.

Also, the non-pounce fighters are already shamed, because if they've got 6+ BAB and aren't able to make full use of it, the Pounce Fighters are laughing at them.

houstonderek wrote:

Here's the deal: what you call "meta-gaming", I call "knowing your setting".

Wizards are an intelligent bunch, they would know that the brothers of the monkly orders are mentally tough cats who don't get dominated easily. As soon as he saw your unarmored butt going through heaven and hell to get to him, he'd know you were no spellcaster. And your lack of armor and humble garb would rule out any sneaks or warrior types. And that you're moving faster than a mere normal person? Nah, not a give a way there.

So, the first thing that would pop into my head would be "bunny!". And chuck the +4. Being a small, lovable rodent isn't "fatal", unless your character is deathly allergic to cuteness. Were I to turn you into a fish or something, sure.

No, meta-gaming would be assuming that amulet you are wearing is of the "mighty blows" variety, which would be dangerous to me, rather than an amulet of natural armor, which would be irrelevant to me, and casting a dispel magic at it.

Not all assumptions characters, NPC or PC, make are necessarily meta-gaming. Sometimes they're just common sense.

Fair enough.

Because fortitude is this characters weakness. He takes as some of his feats, Great Fortitude, then Improved Great fortitude. Now on average he saves and if he fails he gats a reroll.

See? when you want to get specific and target specific weaknesses of the character I made I will do the same to capitalize on them. Back to my original point, nigh any specific magic spells to target him (which I could equally negate due to other means) you would be on a guess as to what to cast.

Lets say I dump my Dex. Boost my con. Now it goes in a different direction, I still have improved evasion, a still decent Touch AC, a much better fortitude save, more hp to resist the damage from the failed reflexs (which are halved anyways and still less likely).

Also the will save still stands, a monk will save everytime. I unarmed Strike you as a bunny and stunning fist. think thats...

You know, I might be out of line here, but...

This is at 10th level. Why didn't the wizard cast overland flight that morning, and is out of reach of the monk, who sure as hell doesn't have Wings of Flying or any reliable way of obtaining flight with his level 10 WBL? (Once again proving that a single school [transmutation] has enough tools at its disposal to completely destroy a class as badly designed as the Monk. Or any melee-focused character.)

Let's say the Wizard dumps his Intelligence. Sure, that might, might make for some interesting roleplaying, but a dumb Wizard is about as fun to play as a weak Fighter. Or a Monk. That's an NPC, not a PC.

Consequently, any adventurer who drops their Constitution is dead meat. There's enough out there that threatens so much that relies on their Constitution (hitpoints, fortitude saves, not dying) that someone with a low Constitution isn't going to make it in the wide world of adventuring.

Also, why doesn't he throw a Will save at the Monk? Enchantment is one of the most commonly banned schools for any Wizard worth the name. Guess what the other two are. I'll give you one for free: It's the school with all the worthless SR: Yes spells whose only function is to cause hitpoint damage that is better done by the BSF. Spells whose damage stayed the same from 2E to 3E and Pathfinder even though hitpoints went through a doubling (tripling?) during the transition between the first two.

Removed posts. Please keep this on topic.

See what you did, Liz? You killed the topic. ;_;

RelentlessImp wrote:

Dragonsong wrote:

@relentless Imp Unless you are following the merc's code out of fields of fire. then you just hope you end up in a situation where you can grenade or rocket said party member as a "casualty of war"

Why? Why should I waste resources on a party member who can't pull their own weight in helping them out? They're just a liability that might wind up getting us all killed. For the good of the party, those people have to die - or at least get the hell as far away from the competent members before they cause a situation that puts us in danger just because of their ineptitude.

I've found that these people tend to quickly die on their own, well before any real or perceived need to do it for them. So even if you do feel that way, it's a self correcting problem.

Not always. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that just because you're playing with your friends, you should be helping their characters out, no matter how incompetent they are. I mean, it's so easy to build a competent character at each level of 3.5 and even PF there's no excuse for not being so.

Unfortunately, like I mentioned, there's this "help the incompetent characters survive" movement that keeps them from dying a rightful death.

@relentless Imp Unless you are following the merc's code out of fields of fire. then you just hope you end up in a situation where you can grenade or rocket said party member as a "casualty of war"

Why? Why should I waste resources on a party member who can't pull their own weight in helping them out? They're just a liability that might wind up getting us all killed. For the good of the party, those people have to die - or at least get the hell as far away from the competent members before they cause a situation that puts us in danger just because of their ineptitude.

I tend to design my all my characters around a single core concept. While the fluff changes, and the design philosophy changes to fit the needs of the character to hit that concept. Basically, be competent at my role, and be able to kill or sell the party members who can't pull their weight to our enemy(ies). Then again, I may be overly influenced by Shadowrun, where that sort of thinking is encouraged...